Sorry this is long guys. I had to throw in my two cents here. And I feel this can be done in a reasonable way, that isn't gamey, and isn't extreme on the coding side either. I had to put this out here, despite its length.

I'm not sure why something like borders should be hard to code, separately from influence. Borders just need to be a specified radius around a planet. Your borders are what you own, physically, ie. land. In other words, if you own the planet, then you have a claim to a certain radius around the planet. This can be two parsecs, or eight, for all I care. And it could even be a startup option, to add more choices to the game. And to be clear here, star bases have no effect, they are ships without engines, not territorial claims (that requires ownership of land). Your borders are nothing more then a radius around your planets, which should be very easy to code.

And the UP can even vote to let the races decide exactly what size should be the internationally (galactic) accepted zone size. Just as our UN and current international law recognizes three miles of ownership out into the ocean.

Now, that just does not seem remotely difficult to me to be able to code. But then it leaves the next question, of how to handle it when someone enters your territory without a right of passage treaty. And that doesn't have to be too terribly complicated either.

Simply, if they are in your territory, we can have multiple options for solving the issues. If I attack someone within my territorial borders, I get a pop up with two choices, 1) attack (declare war), or 2) diplomatic ejection (i.e. that ship gets teleported back to their home or nearest planet). This isn't exactly unrealistic. Nations eject diplomats, or deport people, or whatever the case may be all the time. Calculate the time it would have taken to make the journey and wait that amount of time before making it available again. It's part of the price you pay for getting caught, and it keeps it more realistic (we are simulating that it was deported and had to travel back).

Now, we can try to run the blockade, so to speak. And the other side has to actually catch us to stop us. Yet we can be caught and ejected, or it could possibly even start a war. We have options, not restrictions. And that's for both sides involved in the issue. Perhaps a planet we own requires us to "run the gauntlet" because its deep behind the lines within another's territory. And different AI personalities can have different tendencies for their response (of course balanced if they simply can not win a war).

And then you could expand the right of passage with more flavors. Full right of passage, or just trading rights of passage. Or if we "really" wanted, only rights of passage through the borders of a specific set of planets. Or, even better, another right of passage for specific types of star base construction. Again, more options makes for a better game and I'll bet others can be creative and come up with more variations, that really wouldn't be too much more to code.

Continuing on, we now can have disputed zones where two planets have overlapping radius zones. In disputed zones, you can't diplomatically eject the other side any longer. You either attack and declare war, to decide who really owns it, or you acknowledge their right to be there. Simply, if it's a disputed zone, you can't diplomatically eject them any longer. I can park on their doorstep and they can't eject me (because I do have as much claim to be there as they do). But it might be that they don't like that and are willing to fight as a remedy.

The gamey things are lame. And I wholeheartedly agree that simply teleporting them 100 parsecs or artificially slowing them down degrades the game, rather than enhances it. And I don't feel those are "minor degradations" either.

We are adding layers of play to the game this way. Cloaking comes to mind, when thinking of even more ways to add options and playability here.

One last point here. With borders being a simple radius around your planets, we have added an additional layer of game play by making that radius adjustable in the options or by UP vote. Some of us like to put influence star bases near other races planets. All of a sudden, depending on how large that radius is, those star bases may not be buildable up close and personal. Make it so you can't build a star base in someone else's territory, without a forced declaration of war, or star base right of passage. This brings in more playability, such as what happens if you have a star base somewhere (with right of passage), but the territory it's in changes ownership? The other side can ignore our star base, or attack (giving the option of 1. attack, or 2. force owner to sell it off, or 3. capture it with troops). And why not make all star bases capturable, for that matter.

This is adding simple, yet significant playability options, and it keeps it reasonably realistic. And it seriously should not be hard to code a radius or number of parsecs outward from a planet, to determine territory. Please consider some of this.

Finally someone who shares my concerns about treaties in the colonization rush that I voiced in #83.
This can cecome a major problem, making people even less likely to play corner games!

I think the issue is people want this, but in a "realistic" way.

Concerns: In cases of vast cultural influence, people will not be able to reinforce their planet.

Realism concerns.

First one- I'd make the suggestion that any sector you have a planet, you can travel across that sector regardless. Or maybe within sensor range of that planet- whichever is easier to code.

I think in cases of closed borders, the AI can attack ships within the borders without declaring war. Freighters would avoid the territory- though would not get a commerce bonus for doing so. Would take a relations hit for each attacked ships. Ships in enemy space can defend themselves but not attack without declaring war. When space is closed, there would be an option to autopilot out of the area without being attacked. This can be cancelled but your ship would be attacked in that case. Having ships in closed space is a relationship penalty. Closing space would hurt influence with that civ.

Hi!

IMO I can say something here. Sneak attacks are just a tip of the iceberg, and no cheese at all. Down below that tip are hidden many more or less cheese tactics, that misuse the game mechanics and AI weak spots. Here are some I think are the worst:

Good Diplomacy, as it enables player to fight 400% suicidal bonus with 400% suicidal bonus by enabling him to incite wars among AIs. I exterminated many races with no warships on my site, just with transports to take planets another AI cleared of defenders. Solution: give all suicidal AIs about 30% starting diplo bonus, and let us check how it will work out, or just make paying for the war significantly more expensive, making SuperManipulator really special.

Diplomatic bonus from treaties is too high. In one game I had an almost hostile Korath on my border I just could't pay to go to war, so I simply gave him my research treaty. The additional two pluses made their relations with me normal quite fast.

I would also mention here the trade-whoring, but
a) I don't have fresh experience with it, as in most my games I turn tech-trade off, and
b) it involves so much work it IMO deserves to stay in the game. In anyone is ready to invest half of his game-time to trading, then let him do it.
The one change I'd really like to see is player receives the tech when the game processes the turn (the tech should not be available immediately for usage or resale).

From game-mechanics I'd mention two:
a) DA defenses, that in early and mid game make ships almost invincible, and
b) the planet invasion tech transfer. In my recent game I had only basic weapons, and never in whole game researched any weapons above that, but ended my first and second war using Graviton driver II and last two wars with Doom Ray. Solution: apply about 75% of TPs the gained tech costed in curent galaxy (slow-fast tech, size) to the same tech branch of the player. You already have all needed mechanics for that in the game.

WRT DA engines nerf: keep it. I just finished a DL game where I had a huge hull with attack ~200, ~300 defense and speed ~60. I alone destroyed defenders on about 8 arceans' planets in a single turn. IMO that's just silly.

BR, Iztok

I believe that the AIs do get a diplomatic bonus on suicidal already...

i saw Cari's post on the previous forum and neglected to check on whether there was a new dev journal, so beg pardon for jumping in late in the discussion. also beg pardon if something i say has been said (and dismissed) already. finally beg pardon if i offer advice on improving the game for suicidal players not being one myself: the AI, however, isn't from what i understand any smarter on suicidal than on tough - it only gets lots more resources.

i think looking at this in a new way could help. the idea of moving 1 parsec/turn is ludicrous, esepcially with many players (me at least) looking forward to immense galaxy sizes.

the "declare war" option as you describe it, Cari, isn't totally horrible, but it's also far from ideal. it does sacrifice game realism, but truth be told, there are already a number of ways that the game is far from realistic. i do not believe realism should be a deciding factor in game design, but it should always remain a central guiding principle.

i think focusing a bit more on sensors could be an interesting alternative. as it stands, the AI doesn't seem to ever invest much in sensors. now, if i were playing against a human opponent who could use the "sneak attack" tactic, i'd be inclinded build massive networks of starbases and sensor drones. if i noticed more ships than i felt comfortable with approaching my planets, i'd contact said player demanding to know what was going on. if the player was "too busy" to speak with me, i'd assemble as much a battle force as i could muster and bear my teeth, so to speak. i'd have my ships contact their offending ships also demanding explanations.

the idea here is, i don't want a war, and i don't want to get caught with my pants down either. i'd also be investing heavily in espionage in an attempt to learn what i could from the inner rings of government - current plans, stresses that empire was facing, abnormal shifts in behavior. none of these options are simulated in GC. while i realize adding such a level of detail would be a massive undertaking, perhaps there is a better middle ground possible.

for one thing, the AI could focus more on being aware of what's going on in its own backyard. this could be facilitated by making SBs easier to contruct and upgrade - perhaps not by moving completely away from the "constructor gets consumed" model, but maybe by making it possible for a single constructor to add multiple modules (for example by including upgrades in the constructor ship part itself, and/or by being able to deconstruct SBs back into constructors).

i think the second step could be by adding a stronger emphasis to dipolmacy, in the game generally and subsequently in the AI's use of it. back in DL players would frequently call for the ability to send threats to the AIs, such as "move your starbase or die" (the way the AI used to do). what's wrong with having the ability to 'leave messages'? it makes sense that two leaders of interstellar empires wouldn't have time on a weekly basis to sit down and chat, but i'd assume their secretaries would still be willing to take messages (like "we know you're planning to invade us and we've taken steps to thwart you").

it also seems the AI doesn't keep much of a 'track record' for other players' personalities. the diplomatic relations, the system of pluses and minuses that determine how close two players are, is rather simplistic. it determines both what a player is willing to do for/with you, and how likely that player is to declare war on you. in my opinion, the game could be improved by separating these two functions. there could be a "trust/distrust" dimension and a "love/hate" dimension. so a massively powerful drengin empire would likely hate almost all the other players, because they're weak and snivelling and, let's face it, "sub-drengin species." but if the drengin were sufficiently powerful, they'd have no reason to distrust those other players - what're they gonna do? now, if those players formed a network of alliances and might collectively be able to take on the drengin, it'd make much more sense for distrust to shoot up considerably on part of how the dregin feel about those other players. so perhaps instead of love/hate, a better second dimension would be dismiss/fear, though now my idea starts to get a little fuzzy because it's not totally developed or anything (i'm mostly musing here).

this is the kind of stuff i have in mind when i request better diplomacy - not "more treaties" but rather "more realistic communication." thoughts, anyone?

The obvious solution to this is to allow ships without an attack rating to cross without a war declaration. After all, its the possibility of attacking that is the key issue. I would also think blocking off any truly sizable amount of space would be ridiculously expensive in both of time and starports.

This is easier said than done. I'll leave it at that...

Ships without an attack rating

Build Hulls, Build Constructor, get influence, upgrade all ships, sneak attack.

Profit.

did SD hire a new developer? building unique tech trees and adding a 'willingness to trade' tag to techs is easier said than done, i'm fairly sure, but they're still doing it.

i'm not paying for an easy fix; i'm paying for a quality expansion. in the past, SD has always delivered on that. i don't expect a total overhaul, and i made that clear. but it seems they're already doing some major changes so i thought i'd add a bit of intelligent and holistic feedback. shooting down ideas and bickering endlessly is easy; thinking about the system as a whole and player behavior within that system takes a bit more thoughtfulness.

i'll leave it at that.

About sneak attacks and Declaration of War:

I favor a graduated ZOC ruleset. For instance, at the "border" there would be a grey area, where there is a ZOC of none. If there are two ZOC in the area, then the area would have to be at least 2/3 influenced, or be grey. 3/4 for 3 ZOCs, etc.

This would factor into the DOW as allowing a neutral zone or no man's land, depending on the state of war between the ships' owners. Attacks within the grey area would be an act of war, where an attack within the attacker's ZOC could be allowed by treaty. (But this would be a SERIOUS diplomatic issue.) Intrusions into the defender's ZOC would be considered provocation, if the relations are bad enough. Trade routes should allow waypoints (automatically adjusted?) to avoid enemy ZOCs.

Any "sneak" attack (such as attacking when not provoked) would imply a DOW, HOWEVER, this would be a diplomatic hit with ALL AI, unless allied with the attacker or already at war with the attacked. Even evil races, while they might admire your style, would have to become more wary of you. This would be in proportion to your standing WITH THE ATTACKED race.

Oh, and as to ships caught behind the lines in the war, they make best possible speed out of the territory, unless they are armed, then the player/AI has the option to attack with them. There is a one-turn protection for non-combat vessels to clear the area or be destroyed, unless it is a sneak attack, in which case, we all know how you are ...

Warships and starbases are allowed to mutiny, depending on loyalty and how deep into enemy territory they are. Bwa-ha-ha-ha. Better make those commando raids quick and dirty.

Bad bad idea.

1. As someone said, too many fakey limits. Sneak attacks are a valid strategy, they happen. Making them impossible due to a broken game mechanic is not fun.

2. Suspension of disbelief is crucial to games. Most people don't want to be constantly slapped in the face with "this is only a game" reminders. There is absolutely no reason why suddenly wormholes would appear and teleport all your ships hundreds of parsecs, and this ruins any kind of immersion you have going...

I think the UP rule against sneak attack is a nice thing. And occasionally vote for it, but how it SHOULD happen is that all ships would be force to fly in the straightest line OUT of enemy territory without the ability to enter back until all ships of both players are out or 5 turns have passed. Then you are allowed to reenter the enemy territory. Fights in contested/free zones are valid until then... This would be enforced by the UP.

And if there is no up rule in place... sneak attacking someone should simply tag a "sneak attacker" flag on you so that the AI of other species would be highly hostile towards having your ships in their territory.

Casually watching this thread has reinforced my sense that the best "fix" for the idea is to ditch ship movement effects for diplomatic effects. This would avoid the Yor problem, the map scale issues, and the need to add adequate back story to support massive teleportations.

That said, some of the tone I've noticed makes me want to join the cheerleader crowd again to praise the Stardock dev crew for their nigh-radical openness to customer input. I never forget that you folks are working to combine making a successful business with your love of the game. The time you spend here is very valuable, even if some of us usually appear to take it for granted.

You got me. Damn upgradeability. Though this would still make it more expensive than is currently the case.

Let's add another rules change, then..the inability to upgrade a ship without an attack rating?

Actually, your points were obvious and boiled down to 'make the tactical/operational a.i. better!'. Name a game of this type with good tactical a.i., and I'll give it to you, but even civ 4, whose conquering mechanics for the a.i. to hold its own, is not competitive on the attack or defense. It does have additional mechanics to raise the pricetag on conquest though, and that's the direction this game should go in.

Sneak attacks would be a valid strategy if they there were other, equally valid tactics, but there are not, and sneak attacks are not particularly difficult to pull off in the game as is.

And though i somewhat value 'realism', i would trade a pound of it for an ounce of good gameplay.

I should add, though, that I'm not for making any ZOC mechanic mandatory. I would be satisfied for to have it as an optional mechanic.

outside of your controlled space.

It's a different thread, but I disagree with the concept of upgrading ships outside of a shipyard. Repairing them: no problem wherever they are. Upgrading them: not when they're not in a shipyard.

Personally I think that cultural borders should be different from the influence borders. Just make the cultural borders extend a certain set distance from the planets you own. So lets say that you have one planet, the cultural border would extend say 5 parsecs out from it in a circle unless it comes in contact with an alien border.

You could also make it a bonus that if you have all the planets possible in a solar system you get a larger circle originating from the star, say 15 parsecs instead of the 5.

In this way I don't think ti would be unbalancing if the you implemented the UN deal for all wars but only with relation to cultural borders instead of influence borders.

Let's split the difference. Ban upgrades outside of a player's cultural territory.

sorry this is what i meant

This idea was stated much earlier in this post, but I agree with it completely. I also agree that there needs to be a definitive "cultural" and "political" border. I do admit, I'm a realist and I like to see as much realism as can be imagined. And while GalCivII takes place in the future and reality is a fine-line I believe there has to be a way to fit both sides of this "argument". I don't necessarily like the ability for sneak attacks (since the AI can't do this, it seems like a huge disadvantage). However, when would it ever be possible anyways? I would never allow a nation to scout out my territory. Much less allow military vessels inside of it. Yet I have no way (as of now  ) to tell them to leave my territory. This then raises another question as to what are these "borders". That is why I believe that all military vessels should not be allowed to enter an enemy's political border (not including their "cultural" border) without repercussions. If you do have a right of passage with a nation, Trade ships and scout ships would of course be able to come in (and move at full engine capacity). If you try to get into a nation for a sneak attack, they are most likely going to declare war before you get close to one of their planets anyways. It keeps the depth of reality alive, while not making the game unbearably realistic and micro-managed. What do you think?

Problem- too artificial.

I want sneak attacks to remain in the game, but at a serious diplo penalty.

Open/Closed borders is a great idea if done right- it's hard to do right though.